Can a Leftist Tugtard explain what Trump did that merits a $454 million seizure of assets?
Comments
-
Go ahead and state those reasons.
-
I don't know where you practice law, but posting a bond to stay collection of an amount more than twice as large is a win everywhere else.
-
It's usually a 10% bond with guarantors or bondsman in every state that I'm familiar with, but I'm not sure what the going rate is for witchhunts in New York
-
No, it isn't a "10% bond" usually, if ever. The bond is usually for the full amount, plus anticipated interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
If we take him at his word, Daddy couldn't an insurer or guarantor for the amount of the judgment.
-
175 million still falls under excessive punishment.
-
-
We are still awaiting your analysis of the ratio of actual damages to the $454 million. And what other New York real estate developer who actually defaulted on a mortgage had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. You being such a promoter of equal justice under the law certainly must have something at hand, otherwise you look like a political hack like the prosecutor and judge who actually likes that Trump is targeted for political reasons.
-
Still waiting for you to frame the issues correctly, Gasbag. Was your early departure from law school your choice?
Trump’s claim that statute 63(12) has “never been used before” is false, with the New York AG using the law to bring lawsuits against such parties as a leasing company, e-cigarette company JUUL Labs and a predatory lender company. The Trump Organization case isn’t even the first time 63(12) has been used against Trump and his businesses, as former AG Eric Schneiderman previously sued Trump University under the statute, which resulted in a $25 million settlement in 2018.
-
Good on you to admit that it’s been used only when consumers were harmed.
-
You seem to assume loans wouldn't have been made and opportunities wouldn't have been available to others had Daddy not obtained them instead through his multiple frauds.
